> It doesn't have to be a "keyword" in the sense of reservedid, right?
Correct, it's only a keyword when used in the context of deriving, similar to how "role" is only a keyword in the context of "type role". You could still define, say, `id role = role` if you so wished. Ryan S. On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Andres Loeh <m...@andres-loeh.de> wrote: >> It might be a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, but I _really_ like it. It >> captures the intended semantics better than any other previous >> suggestion, I think. And we're already going to be appropriating a new >> keyword with "anyclass", so why not take "bespoke" as well? :) > > It doesn't have to be a "keyword" in the sense of reservedid, right? > >>> I thought about verbosity here, and it's not clear which one is more >>> verbose. For example, I frequently define a new newtype and then wish to >>> use GND to derive a whole host of instances. In this case (is it common?), >>> `deriving (X, Y) deriving newtype (A,B,C,D,E,F)` is shorter than putting >>> newtype on each class name. >> >> That's a good point. Another thing to consider is that I suspect in >> 90% of the time, users are only going to be reaching for >> -XDerivingStrategies in the scenario when they enable both >> -XGeneralizedNewtypeDeriving and -XDeriveAnyClass. That will happen >> when they want to derive instances for newtypes, and as you said, you >> typically derive several instances at a time when defining newtypes. >> Therefore, it seems less noisy to factor out the deriving strategy >> names so that readers can tell at a glance which batch of instances >> are newtype-derived and which are anyclass-derived, instead of having >> to read a keyword before every single type. > > Yes, you've convinced me that putting the strategy once in front is at > least not worse. > >> Plus, on a superficial level, I like keeping the deriving strategy >> name outside of the parentheses. I think it makes clear that these >> keywords aren't modifying the type we're deriving, only the means by >> which we're deriving it. Of course, you may feel differently than I >> do, so please speak up if you disagree! > > The very first times when I've talked to others about this feature, I > think I've always used "deriving (Eq via bespoke, Monad via gnd)" as > syntax, but yes, in general I agree that keeping it completely out of > the parentheses may be a mild advantage. > > Cheers, > Andres _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs